The Lefts War on the Family

Bonnie

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2004
9,476
673
48
Wherever
www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3390

Comservatives have long advocated the importance of strong families and deplore efforts, by socialists, feminists, and government bureacrats, to weaken family ties. Indeed, for many conservatives, the family --the traditional, "nuclear" family is the fundamental cornerstone of society, and absolutely indespensable form of social organization.

Leftists, by contrast have taken a decidedly jaundiced view of the traditional family. To them, a household consisting of an adult male and female--united in matrimony--and their offspring is an antiquated, repressive institutions standing in the way of constructing a "better," more egalitarian world.

The famous 19th century socialist Robert Owen included the family, along with marriage and private property, in his "triumvirate of evil", which he asserted "cursed the world ever since the creation of man." He advocated public care for children at his utopian community "New Harmony" in POsey County, Indiana, the family, Owen declared, must give way to the "scientific" association of from one hundred to two thousand people. By association, Owen meant that children care be transferred to be transferred form parental to institutionalized care. This was a task heartliy embraced by one of Owen's chief "lieutenants." William Maclure. He developed a Spartan system of education for the children of "New Harmony," which consists of divorcing children from their parents and placing them in communal living arrangements.

Communists have likewise almost invariably proposed to destroy, change or regulate the institution of the family. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto were hardly coy about their distate of the family, declaring the "hallowed correlation of parent and child" is nothing more than "bourgeois claptrap." They went on to add, "Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead gulity." Engels even devoted an entire book, his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, to an extended attack on monogamous marriage and the family.

Many contemporary leftists, especially Marxist-inspired feminists, would conspire with the sentiments of Engels and Kollontai. Indeed, many have taken up where their 19th century forbearers left off. Gloria Steniem, the famous celebrity feminist once declared, "We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage...By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, no God..We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement."

Novelist and feminist Toni Morrison concurred, announcing, "The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work. It doesn't work for white people, black people. Why we are hanging on to it, I don't know."

Linda Gordon, a radical feminist writer, attempted to rally her sisters by announcing, "The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living..Whatever it's ultimate meaning, the break-up of family is now an objectively revolutionary process.

With all this in mind, it is time for conservatives and those who value American society to stand up and redouble their efforts to preserve and defend the traditional family. It is alos time to peg leftists with their true label--enemies of American society!!!!!!!!!
 
When you consider the incredible divorce rate and the huge number of kids from broken families or in foster care, the assertion that marriage and the family are sacred institutions is a pipe dream. And come on, you dont think only communists and leftists get divorced, and not conservatives. Get real
 
sagegirl said:
When you consider the incredible divorce rate and the huge number of kids from broken families or in foster care, the assertion that marriage and the family are sacred institutions is a pipe dream. And come on, you dont think only communists and leftists get divorced, and not conservatives. Get real

What a crock! How can you extrapolate your ill-considered conclusion that "the assertion that marriage and the family are sacred institutions is a pipe dream" from "the incredible divorce rate and the huge number of kids from broken families or in foster care"? How does the fact that the divorce rate is up somehow cause the concept of marriage as an important and "sacred" institution to become suddenly fallacious?

First of all, it is the influence of liberal secularists who have been responsible for the erosion of marriage. Leftists even refer to young married couples as being in a "starter marriage". Their view is that the first marriage is predestined to fail and that, like buying a house, the first marriage will be something you move out of for a bigger, better domicile sometime in the future.

No, I don't think only communists and leftists get divorced and neither does the author of the article. Either you misread or you are attempting to employ the time-honored lib deceit of twisting an argument onto your terms. NOWHERE in the article was such a statement made. The author merely quoted the philosophy of communists and certain lib feminazis in regard to the FAMILY. You cannot deny that libs share the communist disdain for the family. All you have to do is listen to Hillary Clinton's assertion that "it takes a villiage" to raise a child. That is nothing more than a thinly disguised philosophy that children should be raised (and indoctrinated) by the government.

But a thing that puzzles me is this; If liberals have such a huge disdain for the family and a total contempt for marriage as you seem to display, then WHY ARE THEY WORKING SO FEVERISHLY TO APPROPRIATE THAT RIGHT FOR HOMOSEXUALS????
 
sagegirl said:
When you consider the incredible divorce rate and the huge number of kids from broken families or in foster care, the assertion that marriage and the family are sacred institutions is a pipe dream. And come on, you dont think only communists and leftists get divorced, and not conservatives. Get real

The idea that because there is a high divorce rate, and children coming from broken families, has nothing to do with the article which asserts that leftists have an absolute agenda to destroy the fabric that holds our society together, by impuning marriage and parental authority. Not only is that ridiculous, it is dangerous. Isn't it always the Liberals that don't want anyone telling them how to live, so here we have Liberals telling us they are going to have a revolution to destroy Marriage and the family.
The family unit has been strong throughout history, look at any other culture besides Western Civilization, and you will see the family was at the very core of survival for every one of them.
 
Merlin1047 said:
What a crock! How can you extrapolate your ill-considered conclusion that "the assertion that marriage and the family are sacred institutions is a pipe dream" from "the incredible divorce rate and the huge number of kids from broken families or in foster care"? How does the fact that the divorce rate is up somehow cause the concept of marriage as an important and "sacred" institution to become suddenly fallacious?

First of all, it is the influence of liberal secularists who have been responsible for the erosion of marriage. Leftists even refer to young married couples as being in a "starter marriage". Their view is that the first marriage is predestined to fail and that, like buying a house, the first marriage will be something you move out of for a bigger, better domicile sometime in the future.

No, I don't think only communists and leftists get divorced and neither does the author of the article. Either you misread or you are attempting to employ the time-honored lib deceit of twisting an argument onto your terms. NOWHERE in the article was such a statement made. The author merely quoted the philosophy of communists and certain lib feminazis in regard to the FAMILY. You cannot deny that libs share the communist disdain for the family. All you have to do is listen to Hillary Clinton's assertion that "it takes a villiage" to raise a child. That is nothing more than a thinly disguised philosophy that children should be raised (and indoctrinated) by the government.

But a thing that puzzles me is this; If liberals have such a huge disdain for the family and a total contempt for marriage as you seem to display, then WHY ARE THEY WORKING SO FEVERISHLY TO APPROPRIATE THAT RIGHT FOR HOMOSEXUALS????


I probably believe in the value of family at least as much as you do.

I have never heard of anything like starter marriages but anyone who buys into that sort rhetoric is grasping at straws. No one has to get married and no one has to get a divorce. My point was that a person who gets married/divorced has shown a certain disrespect for the commitment they made. This really isnt any leftist communist plot.
 
sagegirl said:
I probably believe in the value of family at least as much as you do.

I have never heard of anything like starter marriages but anyone who buys into that sort rhetoric is grasping at straws. No one has to get married and no one has to get a divorce. My point was that a person who gets married/divorced has shown a certain disrespect for the commitment they made. This really isnt any leftist communist plot.

What the article demonstrates is clear examples of the Leftists view, hatred and the desire of a co-ordinated effort to eradicate traditional marriage and family.They come right out and say as much.

True many of us are guilty of not honoring our committments in some way at some point in our lives, but that casts no reflection on marriage or family itself, just our lack at times to respect or appreciate those things.
 
sagegirl said:
I probably believe in the value of family at least as much as you do.

I have never heard of anything like starter marriages but anyone who buys into that sort rhetoric is grasping at straws. No one has to get married and no one has to get a divorce. My point was that a person who gets married/divorced has shown a certain disrespect for the commitment they made. This really isnt any leftist communist plot.

Okay, but that also wasn't the point of the article. The author was asserting that communists and liberals are attacking the concept of the nuclear family.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Okay, but that also wasn't the point of the article. The author was asserting that communists and liberals are attacking the concept of the nuclear family.

I strongly value the concept of a strong nuclear family. But didnt we all learn alot as kids when we went to a friends house and realised that they lived differently that we did at home. For instance you might go to someones house for dinner and they say grace before a meal, or they swear, or they have cookies and milk before going to bed, or they have to do their chores and homework before they get to watch tv, and their parents might even care what they watch or have blocks on what they do on the internet. I know I learned alot from the "village" about diversity. I grew up in a blue collar middle class family in the 1950's. I went to kids houses who had swimming pools and maids. I went to kids houses (some of my best friends) who had never even gone on vacation because their dad was self employed and couldnt take time off. So dont put down the village. A strong nuclear family gives us our values as we go off into that village. For some unforunate kids it is actually the village that offers them more than they get from a dysfunctional home.
 
sagegirl said:
I strongly value the concept of a strong nuclear family. But didnt we all learn alot as kids when we went to a friends house and realised that they lived differently that we did at home. For instance you might go to someones house for dinner and they say grace before a meal, or they swear, or they have cookies and milk before going to bed, or they have to do their chores and homework before they get to watch tv, and their parents might even care what they watch or have blocks on what they do on the internet. I know I learned alot from the "village" about diversity. I grew up in a blue collar middle class family in the 1950's. I went to kids houses who had swimming pools and maids. I went to kids houses (some of my best friends) who had never even gone on vacation because their dad was self employed and couldnt take time off. So dont put down the village. A strong nuclear family gives us our values as we go off into that village. For some unforunate kids it is actually the village that offers them more than they get from a dysfunctional home.

I'm getting the impression that we're wasting keystrokes here as there appears to be little real disagreement.

In regard to the "village" business, yes it is helpful to have public assets available to serve as a back-up in case the family structure fails. But as I perceive H. Clinton's agenda, she wants the government not to augment the family, but to supplant it.
 
Merlin1047 said:
I'm getting the impression that we're wasting keystrokes here as there appears to be little real disagreement.

In regard to the "village" business, yes it is helpful to have public assets available to serve as a back-up in case the family structure fails. But as I perceive H. Clinton's agenda, she wants the government not to augment the family, but to supplant it.

During the Vietnam War, the Communists had a practice when they indoctrinated children. They would take the kids away from their families, then proceed with propaganda classes, which one of the things they did was to draw on a chalk board the representation of families, Dad, Mom, and child, they would then erase the connection between child and parents as a symbolic way of visually and eventually severing all ties with parental authroity. This made them much more easily brainwashed.
 
Marx and Steinem were Jewish, and had ulterior motives for seeking to dissolve traditional Christian families: weaking the gentile family meant weakening the gentile society, all of which made it easier for Jews to compete with gentiles.
 
One thing is for sure.....the number of people marrying is down and continues to dwindle. I think that the reason is that many people are seeing what their parents, friends and relatives who got married and divorced went through and want to have no part in it. I for one can't blame them.

Men especially are afraid to get married, not because of commitment issues, but because they are afraid of what might happen to them if they get divorced. Often times, divorce for men means being alienated from their children, being extorted for money for child support, alimony and of course, property. In many cases, the wife lives in the house with the children (and sometimes her boyfriend moves in as well), while the husband must find an apartment or live with friends or relatives. The equity in the house is often times frozen because the house cannot be sold until all the kids have grown up. The court system is inherently hostile towards the father and rewards custody of the children to the mother in over 90% of cases.

In many cases, men are accused of abuse, with little or no proof that anything happened. Also, the children of divorced parents are more likely to be abused, either sexually or physically, by the boyfriend of the mother. A child is 20 times more likely to be abused by its mother's boyfriend than by its own father.

Thanks to the feminists, lawyers, so called "marriage counsellors" who are often times nothing more than quacks, we have a divorce problem.

The feminists have managed to convince many people (mostly women) that marriage is bad (and many would also like to convince women that men in general are bad). Of course, many feminists themselves grew up in strange circumstances (i.e. had abusive fathers or their fathers abandoned them when they were young), so it just follows that a lot of them have something against men in general. So to them, divorce and lesbianism are good things for women.

Lawyers and marriage counsellors see divorce as easy money. The lawyers often charge a king's ransom to handle divorces. Often times, they protract them in order to get a higher fee. Matrimonial attorneys rake in about 5 to 10 billion dollars a year (1.5 million divorces/year x about 3 to 10 K per divorce on average, you start to see how it adds up).

Of course, marriage counsellors change their hats when divorce time comes. They then take on one of the two parents getting divorced and sometimes the kids too. So they get a fee while the couple is having marital problems and they get a fee to "help" the kids and at least one of the parents "deal" with their divorce. Of course, such "help" doesn't come cheap, many charge anywhere between 50-200 dollars an hour for their services. What a racket!

One thing is for sure, in order to curb the divorce problem in this country, we will have to take away the financial incentive for third parties e.g. lawyers.

Ultimately, divorce is going to remain a problem as long as people think it is acceptable. No law or legislation can change that.
 
Well, one thing is being passed in Arkansas that may stem the tide. I can't remember what it's called, but if you want, you can sign a contract along with the marriage liscence. This contract makes it very hard to divorce. In fact, the couple has to go through a year of marriage counselling before the divorce proceedings can even begin.
 
William Joyce said:
Marx and Steinem were Jewish, and had ulterior motives for seeking to dissolve traditional Christian families: weaking the gentile family meant weakening the gentile society, all of which made it easier for Jews to compete with gentiles.

Awwww - jeeeeeezzzzzzzz!!!!!!!! Are the Jews behind EVERYTHING?

I ran across a cockroach in my garage yesterday. Was it put there by the Jews or was it just another racist looking for a meeting?
 

Forum List

Back
Top